Also, just out of curiosity, how far do your airships travel between refueling, given what you would consider normal conditions and a standard payload?
Concerning your question on range: We will easily fly an entire day without refueling (and more), basically an entire day means 200 miles.
We are not at that stage yet, but we can't wait to test it!
"A covered Hydrogen filling station must have electricity for ventilation." Agree or disagree?
And what about microwave energy beaming? Can microwave wireless energy transfer cause a hole in an airship? What about freak lightning storms while inspecting high energy power lines in a balloon filled with flammable and explosive gas?
It looks like it may be possible to store Hydrogen in Sodium Bicarbonate.
There are aerospace-grade hydrogen tanks that aren't supposed to explode in a crash landing, but what about midair collision and war?
There are people working on drones that hover in midair (that do not add flight and ground risk) that efficiently use the air currents too.
I'm afraid [this airship firm] hasn't done a sufficient level of testing to determine how easily the product can become a war liability, and I don't think FAA should clear Hydrogen airships for energy infrastructure inspection.
There is a shortage of Helium (and 3He and 4He for fusion), which the sun makes out of Hydrogen with heat and radiation from fusion and fission.
Our helium supplies come from natural gas wells. In some areas the natural gas contains enough helium to be worth separating and storing.
If a small drone explodes and takes down an electricity pylon in nowheresville in the middle of a war, I reckon most people would be very grateful that’s all that happened and willing to fund drones just to draw fire from more important areas and nothing else.
Why are you worried about microwaves, or a flaming gas bag during a war? Rockets seem to supersede those concerns entirely. Or the much more valuable infrastructure targets that would also be vulnerable if a craft like this was vulnerable.
Re freak storm; then it catches fire, like many other things that get struck by lightning.
It is feasible that microwave power beaming or similar could affect the wind or the airship directly.
Drones are very inexpensive. Ukraine's latest are probably sufficient to cause operational failure for airships.
It is appropriate to be concerned about flaming gas bags positioned over critical energy infrastructure.
We don't know how to fly a flaming gas bag out of the way when there is a Hydrogen fire.
They don't actually - they cause pressurised containers (propane for example) to outgas but they don't cause an explosion or even ignition.
You can shoot clean through a propane tank with a 50 cal bullet and not even see (from a distance) the effect .. unless the air temp and humidty is enough to condense water about the outgassing.
Go and check out some "let's shoot a propane tank" videos - no explosions UNLESS someone rigs an ignition source (lit flare, etc).
You've been getting your 'facts' from Hollywood.
Indeed we easily could find some pre-existing videos of pressurized cylinders exploding and there being flames. I don't think you're going to convince me that flammable pressurized canisters do cannot cause thrust when punctured.
Does there have to be another existing fire for punctured [propane] tanks to rocket upward like in the movies?
Does a drone RPG carry a light? Really.
> aluminum aircraft contacting a building cause enough of a spark
Read the accident report - static electricity, not a bullet, not a pressurised propane container.
> Does there have to be another existing fire for punctured [propane] tanks to rocket upward like in the movies?
Usually a pulley system or another Hollywood trick.
> Does a drone RPG carry a light?
No. Also, not a bullet, it's a Rocket Propelled Grenade.
Just to clarify, here's a slow motion video of a bullet fired into an unsecured pressurised propane tank (small) with a lit flare next to it.
https://youtu.be/ptend5StNB8?t=62
You can see the tank outgassing and falling off the 44 gallon drum (doesn't "rocket into the air"), the gas eventually (in slow motion it takes a while) lights up from the lit flare and there's a dramatic fireball (burning gas) but no explosion as such - after all is over and done with the propane tank will look a little singed, have two holes in it, but won't look "exploded".
There are other videos with no flares .. much the same happens save there are no fireballs, the gas just expels and expands out into the atmosphere.
- static electricity
- lightning
- flame
- puncture
- midair collision
- birds, flying fish
- acts of war: projectiles, flames, jeers
- solar flares; Carrington events; EMP
- meteors, meteorites
- combinations thereof; static + puncture,
- chance presence of combustible gases and particulates; [grain dust,] + spark/static
And, frankly, flaming gas bag is not a serious threat. It would be neat to see, but a small undirected hydrogen fueled fire without access to any other fuel source is not scary. I'd be more concerned about the body of the deflated vessel causing a short than anything
Civilian aircraft aren't generally expected to be able to withstand midair collision or war. Why would this drone be any different?
Most aircraft today contain some kind of power storage that can ignite dangerously; 100LL or Jet-A in the case of airplanes and helicopters and some drones, lithium-ion batteries in the case of many drones and upcoming eVTOLs (and for aux power in many modern airplanes as well).
Regulatory frameworks and engineering practices are absolutely able to be used to consider the risks of fires in energy storage systems.
Rockets that contain hydrogen have self-destruct, and NASA doesn't want to load a rocket with Hydrogen while astronauts are onboard on the ground; though rocket fuel hydrogen is chilled and pressurized with lots of energy.
The true cost of guarding a hydrogen blimp that's guarding the critical infrastructure? Is it as much as guarding an upriver reactor cask that's under ordinance spec?
Compared to grid scale battery farms for energy storage, would Gravitational Potential Energy and/or CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage (which are less lossy, anyway) be less of a liability if in the flight path of a slow to fixed hydrogen airship?
Aerospace-grade [hydrogen, jet fuel,] tanks are probably more impact resistant than any airship ever?
Which critical energy facilities have procedures for handling a hydrogen airship in their airspace with and without a wind event?
Gravitational Potential Energy in old mines is enough energy storage for domestic US needs FWIU, but supercapacitors or ultracapacitors may be necessary to handle renewable load spikes when the sun shines across the grid.
[0] https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_sa...
You need all three.
My first thought as well. You'd likely need to make it a federal felony to shoot one and have an ad campaign to make it well known or I can't see these lasting 6 months in a rural setting.
That's not just a southern thing. I see the same all over the country.
Unfortunately it is also exceedingly likely that the folks who shoot at road signs as their particular outrage against government are most likely to think that surveillance drones are there to spy on them, and not inspect infrastructure. I don't think regulations or laws matter to those folks.
Nevertheless, we will soon test what happened when we shout our flying HyLighters.
But a blimp, high up and clearly doing something? Nah, it'd be fine.
I am not a lawyer, but is is a very open question if you're flying low enough someone can visually sight you and shoot you down over their property, whether or not that this is a violation of the law /for unmanned vehicles/. Drones in particular have become a serious nuisance and many property owners have taken actions against them in the US triggering court cases, most of which haven't yet reached their conclusion.
EDIT to add that the rules here even vary by state in the US, in some states you own 83 feet over your property of airspace, in others it could be as much as 400 feet (above 400 feet is controlled airspace under the jurisdiction of the FAA). Generally speaking, shooting any aircraft, jamming any radio signal, or shining laser pointers on any aircraft is already federally illegal in the US and violates FAA/FCC regulations, but it's not clear that these regulations are actually constitutional and enforceable, or that it cannot be an act of self-defense to shoot down a low-flying aircraft intruding on your property.
I think you're conflating issues. At least where I grew up, people didn't shoot road signs out of anger at the government. They did it out of boredom. Sometimes as a competition with friends, sometimes alone. I never partook myself.
Imagine the bonus is a ball of fire in the sky for the winning shot!